Who do you turn to when you’re curious about the intricacies of the Great American Songbook, the surprising variety of Jell-O flavors, or the fascinating world of unique languages like Saramaccan? For listeners of Lexicon Valley, the answer is undoubtedly John Mcwhorter. A distinguished academic linguist, John McWhorter has also garnered widespread acclaim for his engaging podcast and numerous popular writings, spanning books and articles where he frequently demonstrates a profound knowledge that extends far beyond his formal academic background.
In a captivating conversation with Tyler Cowen, John McWhorter explored a diverse range of topics. He delved into his intriguing proposition for colloquial Indonesian as a potential universal language, the often brutal origins of Creole languages, and the reasons why Mandarin is unlikely to supplant English as the global lingua franca. The discussion further traversed how the Vikings influenced modern English, the complex racial undertones of Gershwin’s Porgy and Bess, the subtle fading of American regional accents, and even the compelling argument for translating Shakespeare into contemporary English. From comparing Harold Arlen to Andrew Lloyd Webber to debating the merits of reparations for African-Americans, John McWhorter’s insights were as wide-ranging as they were thought-provoking. He also shared how his life in Jackson Heights shapes his perspective, the invaluable lessons he learned from his parents, and why the most promising linguistics students often excel in both Russian and Chinese.
Watch the Full Conversation
Recorded February 17th, 2020
Read the Full Transcript
The Complexity of Language: Estonian and Universal Grammar
TYLER COWEN: Let’s begin with linguistics. I’ve read that the Estonian language boasts 14 case endings, eight distinct dialects, and an astounding 117 subdialects, yet its core speakers number just over a million. What accounts for Estonian’s remarkable complexity?
JOHN MCWHORTER: What a truly wonderful opening question.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: It actually has 16 cases, and the reason for this intricacy lies in Estonia’s size, comparable to New Jersey, or perhaps even just Trenton. It’s a very small community, and historically, there has been minimal incentive—I’m genuinely surprised this is the first question—for anyone to learn Estonian as a second language. Attempts to do so often meet with frustration.
Consequently, the language has become increasingly complex and self-contained. In contrast, Finnish, Estonian’s sister language, is comparatively accessible – essentially, it’s simplified Estonian. Estonian, being a small language rarely acquired by adults, and therefore seldom altered through adult learning errors, has retained and amplified its complexity.
COWEN: Does this intricate linguistic structure shape Estonian national identity or politics in any way?
MCWHORTER: From my limited exposure to Estonians—perhaps one and a half individuals—I haven’t observed a strong connection between language complexity and the Estonian national character. However, hearing an Estonian speak their native tongue should inspire awe, recognizing the immense cognitive feat they accomplish while simultaneously managing everyday tasks like walking, breathing, or simply existing.
[laughter]
COWEN: If linguistic complexity incurs a social cost, why not simply eliminate irregular verbs? While the logic of “go” is clear, its transformation into “went” remains perplexing. While German has similar irregularities with wenden and wendet, why not streamline these inconsistencies to reduce communication friction?
MCWHORTER: Ideally, we should. We should rid languages of these unnecessary complications. However, the reality is that language often surpasses functional necessity by a significant margin. This might be hard to appreciate, especially for native speakers, particularly of a relatively streamlined language like English. We might perceive language as fundamentally efficient, with basic concepts and words like think, thought, seemingly manageable.
However, most languages far exceed the demands of both basic common sense and nuanced communication. This is simply because language can. The capacity of a toddler’s mind to grasp linguistic intricacies is astonishing. By the time one becomes aware of Estonian’s complexity, it’s generally too late for linguistic reform. I might be courting controversy with that statement.
[laughter]
Greater linguistic efficiency would be beneficial, simplifying language learning and cross-cultural communication. Yet, such simplification is unlikely. Languages, much like cats, are inherently prone to accumulating complexities and “dirt,” becoming marked by irregularities and inconsistencies.
It would be nice if language were more efficient because it would be easier to learn other people’s languages, but it will never happen because languages are like cats. They’re always crawling in and getting dirty or stung.
COWEN: You’ve previously argued against the concept of a standard English. Yet, encountering situations like hailing a taxi in India often evokes a longing for a more standardized form of English. Simpler English could facilitate communication with taxi drivers in India or Trinidad. Why oppose a standard English if you acknowledge the inherent complexities of language?
MCWHORTER: I’m not against a standard English, but I wouldn’t advocate for English to be that standard. Frankly, I find English aesthetically unappealing. Consider its sounds—”ay,” “eh,” “oow,” “aug”—these are the very sounds learners often strive to overcome when mastering languages like Italian.
The ideal international language would be exceptionally easy to learn, distinct from a simplified or “dumbed-down” English. It should be something almost unrecognizable as a language to any of us, yet readily acquired within about a month. That is what we truly need.
While the English we speak feels natural and standard—to me, it feels almost divinely ordained—the reality is that more Indians speak it than native English speakers. From a Martian perspective, “standard English” might well be Indian English, with our native English appearing as merely a regional dialect.
My ideal universal language is colloquial Indonesian. It’s the closest language to perfection I’ve encountered. While I didn’t encounter taxis there, just mopeds, communication was remarkably smooth.
Pidgin and Creole Languages: Born from Necessity and Barbarity
COWEN: Why is Malay grammar significantly more complex than Indonesian, given their close cultural, religious, and linguistic ties?
MCWHORTER: Actually, the truth is—
COWEN: [To audience] He knows, see?
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: This is enjoyable. Not what I anticipated… Malay and Indonesian, linguistically speaking, are surprisingly streamlined. Indonesian is exemplary in its simplicity; it avoids verb conjugations like hablo, hablas, habla. Furthermore, unlike many languages lacking conjugations, it’s also blissfully free of tones.
No verb conjugations and no tones. It’s simply language in its purest form. Colloquial Indonesian is beautifully efficient, representing human language at its best. In other parts of Indonesia, languages exhibit typical complexities, but Malay Indonesian, a lingua franca for 2,000 years, has been refined, shedding unnecessary complexities. It’s truly remarkable.
COWEN: What new pidgin languages might emerge today and why?
MCWHORTER: Pidgins and Creoles are a fascinating field. One could dedicate a career to them, authoring books, attending conferences—though I won’t name names.
[laughter]
Creole languages often arise from brutal circumstances. Plantation settings, where enslaved people were forcibly brought and denied return, were common breeding grounds. Hawaiian pidgin, which evolved into a Creole, emerged in the 1890s as laborers from diverse corners of the globe were brought to harvest pineapples after slave labor became untenable.
Such conditions are inherently undesirable, thus the formation of new Creole languages is less frequent today. However, a minor linguistic debate is currently unfolding, one I’ve inadvertently been drawn into. Petty academic disagreements, as always, are part of the story. Some linguists harbor personal animosity towards me due to my theories on colloquial Indonesian speech.
This colloquial Indonesian, widely spoken in Indonesia, isn’t a pidgin but a Creole—a language reborn, streamlined, and spoken by a vast population. While it’s unlikely you or I will adopt it, English, for better or worse—mostly worse—remains the universal language, as we’re demonstrating now.
While I’d prefer to predict Mandarin’s rise to global dominance, its complexity makes that improbable. English, unfortunately, remains the default universal language.
COWEN: Given that rapid influxes of new speakers drive pidgin language evolution, and with a surge of recent English learners, might English itself evolve into a pidgin, rendering our current form archaic in, say, 30 years?
MCWHORTER: You might hope for that. One might hope for that.
COWEN: Just not anyone in this room.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: New language learners could indeed streamline English, much like colloquial Indonesian. But literacy acts as a stabilizing force. Widespread education and literacy anchor language to the written word, resisting radical simplification. Without literacy, English might well be simplifying across generations.
COWEN: Why does Chinese grammar appear so simple?
MCWHORTER: That’s a potentially controversial observation. Chinese grammar, specifically Mandarin Chinese, is relatively simple, though “relative” is key. Dig deeper, and complexities emerge. Mandarin has grammatical gender, though not explicitly termed as such. Nouns require classifiers, often seemingly arbitrarily assigned.
Mandarin has its own intricacies, including tones, notoriously difficult for non-native speakers. However, Mandarin is among a select group of languages whose geopolitical significance led to a period where second-language learners rivaled native speakers.
Evidence suggests this occurred in China around 4,000 to 4,500 years ago. Consequently, a language initially likely possessing conjugations—akin to hablo, hablas, habla—evolved into a more streamlined form. Mandarin is thus a language significantly shaped by second language acquisition.
COWEN: If the world loses most of its estimated 6,000 languages—
MCWHORTER: Which is a likely outcome.
COWEN: —is that a social loss? Should we be concerned or perhaps even celebrate?
MCWHORTER: That’s a complex question. My genuine answer isn’t that each language is a window into the soul of its speakers. That notion, despite its appeal, is surprisingly problematic. For every positive aspect attributed to a language, a less flattering one often exists, inadvertently associating speakers with both.
However, a distinct culture is often defined by its unique linguistic code. The code itself—word shapes, grammar—is less important than its function as a unique identifier. If everyone converges on a single language, cultural diversity will inevitably diminish. We’ll likely end up with Portuguese, Vietnamese, Mandarin, and about 25 other major languages, a few hundred minority languages, and the rest will vanish. Reduced linguistic diversity means reduced cultural diversity, as language is a cornerstone of cultural identity.
The Intrigue of Saramaccan: A Linguistic Melting Pot
COWEN: What makes Saramaccan such an interesting language?
MCWHORTER: [laughs] This is truly delightful.
[laughter]
COWEN: For those unfamiliar, Saramaccan originates from Suriname—
MCWHORTER: The questions I usually get… this is a welcome change. Saramaccan—here’s the story. Imagine 17th-century South America, the northern edge, an English plantation colony in the 1660s. African slaves are brought in, primarily speaking Fongbe and Kikongo, among other languages of lesser influence.
The English relinquish the colony to the Dutch in a trade—New Amsterdam becomes New York, Suriname shifts to Dutch control. Portuguese-Jewish slave owners from Brazil also arrive, bringing more slaves—a fascinating side story of Jewish diaspora.
Three hundred and fifty years later, what language is spoken by the descendants of slaves who escaped into the rainforest and remained free? That language is Saramaccan. It’s a fascinating subject of study, and I’m among many who have explored it. Saramaccan is a linguistic fusion of English, Dutch, Portuguese, Fongbe, and Kikongo, with unique linguistic innovations. It’s also tonal, adding another layer of complexity.
COWEN: A basic question: if immersion is not feasible, how should an adult effectively learn a foreign language?
MCWHORTER: It’s challenging. Frankly, sleeping with a native speaker is one effective method.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: Two methods stand out in my experience. One, as mentioned, is intimate immersion. The other—and I’ll plug this because it genuinely works—is Glossika. It’s somewhat under-the-radar. Glossika starts at an intermediate level, precisely where most other methods plateau, despite promises of fluency. “Converse like a native in no time” claims are misleading; you might acquire scattered vocabulary and basic phrases.
Glossika picks up where those methods leave off, providing intermediate-level, idiomatic sentences to absorb aurally, as much as you desire throughout the day. By its completion, you’ll reach roughly an upper-intermediate level.
Beyond that, immersion becomes essential, unless you have close, patient native speakers willing to endure your linguistic struggles for years. Otherwise, immersion is the key.
COWEN: Hither, thither, whither – these words have largely vanished from English but persist in German. Why?
MCWHORTER: [laughs] Blame the Vikings! They arrived in 787, initially feigning peaceful intentions, but they never left. Genetic evidence suggests they were predominantly men. They married English-speaking women, attempting to learn Old English, but being over 17, their acquisition was imperfect.
They spoke a broken Old English. Newspapers, formal schooling, structured education didn’t exist. Language was primarily oral. Children grew up hearing Beowulf-era English from their mothers and this Viking-influenced, broken English from their fathers. Perhaps they favored their fathers. A significant portion of England spoke this way.
Gradually, this hybrid language evolved into what we speak today—a “shitty Old English.” That’s how it happened. The complexities of hither, thither, and whither were among the many grammatical features streamlined and eventually lost, becoming archaic rather than current. We speak a very, shall we say, streamlined Germanic language.
COWEN: Every society uses status markers, including clothing and speech. Is the extent to which speech has become a status marker problematic? Should we attempt to lessen this?
MCWHORTER: I’m not sure, Tyler. Speech, I believe, expresses the full spectrum of human experience. In any society beyond a tiny group, status marking and hierarchy are inherent, even if just in differentiating formal and informal registers. Language inevitably reflects this. While aspects of language-based status marking might seem superfluous additions to basic grammar, like assigning genders to inanimate objects or tense markers, formality itself is fundamental. I appreciate this aspect of language. It’s integral, not just ornamentation.
COWEN: In hiring for a for-profit enterprise seeking talent, could one gain an advantage by consciously disregarding speech patterns and prioritizing candidates with overlooked talent due to speech-based biases? Which direction does this bias typically lean?
MCWHORTER: That’s a complex question. A brilliant, kind, adaptable, and artistically gifted individual might be overlooked due to vowel sounds, consonant pronunciations, or expressions deemed less prestigious. Prejudice based on speech is deeply ingrained.
Enlightenment involves learning to transcend these biases. It’s challenging but not impossible. Our current social climate, in many ways, makes this more achievable than, say, in 1955. We’re learning to listen past accents.
While perfection is unattainable, focusing on fostering this understanding is more productive than attempting to eliminate all speech-based status markers. The former is arguably more feasible.
The Art of Speaking Well: Articulation and Regional Accents
COWEN: Are there Americans today who possess a truly excellent command of proper English? Who speaks exceptionally well?
MCWHORTER: [laughs] I know—
COWEN: A serious question.
MCWHORTER: I understand your point, and I want to give a thoughtful answer. As someone deeply immersed in language, having studied diverse grammars and nonstandard dialects—though the latter isn’t my primary academic focus, it’s a persona I sometimes adopt—and having grown up Black, hearing nonstandard dialects without initially perceiving them as deficient, I perceive almost everyone as articulate. And I don’t mean that in a naive, overly enthusiastic way.
Of course, some individuals do struggle with articulation. I’ve encountered people whose speech lacks a clear connection between nouns and verbs. And some public figures are surprisingly inarticulate given their positions.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: Inarticulateness exists, but it’s rarer than often assumed. I often find remarkable articulation in everyday interactions, even in humble settings like the post office.
I recall about 15 years ago, witnessing an act of arrogance. A cousin remarked, “Blah, blah, blah, blah, did you see this?” I responded, “Well, yes, I imagine that might have been their intention.” She simply replied, “Yeah, there’s some of that.” “Yeah, there’s some of that”—a phrase I’d never heard before, but have used ever since. Remarkably concise and insightful.
No one would label my cousin particularly articulate, but that phrase struck me as a subtle piece of linguistic artistry I hadn’t encountered. That’s my honest answer. Some people are inarticulate, but it’s uncommon.
Hyper-articulate individuals exist, but in daily life, I often encounter moments of linguistic brilliance from unexpected sources. “That sounded good to me,” I think, often from someone seemingly unassuming.
COWEN: Articles suggest regional accents within the United States are becoming stronger, not weaker. Is this plausible?
MCWHORTER: Who made that claim?
COWEN: Slate. It was on Slate. I’m skeptical, hence my question to you.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: I can imagine someone arguing that, and their reasoning. However, regional accents are not intensifying. Seventy-five years ago, a New England accent differed radically from an Atlanta accent. Atlanta accents, unlike today, were distinct from those in Raleigh or Washington, DC.
Radio initiated the erosion of these differences, followed by improved education, particularly post-GI Bill. While regional variations persist in American English, they are subtle, often limited to lexical choices like “soda” versus “pop.” Such minor differences now surprise people. A century ago, demonstrating that a Coloradan accent differed from a Minnesotan accent would have been stating the obvious.
Accents are converging. They’ll never completely disappear, as people primarily interact with local communities. But dialects are not diverging, unless I’ve missed a major linguistic shift, which I doubt in this case.
COWEN: Does Black English say “soda” or “pop”? Or is it geographically dependent?
MCWHORTER: [laughs] It’s geographically dependent, as Black communities are widespread.
COWEN: Along the same regional lines?
MCWHORTER: I’ve not seen dialect maps specifically charting “soda” vs. “pop” in Black English. I know where to look, and can follow up, but I suspect it mirrors national trends.
Translating Shakespeare and the Death of Love Letters
COWEN: When will Shakespeare require translation?
MCWHORTER: Today.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: We know the standard defenses: “It’s poetry,” “Just let it wash over you,” “It’s better with British actors,” “A good director is key,” “You just need to work harder,” etc. But no.
The issue is that every tenth word, especially in late Shakespeare, has a different meaning than we assume. Words like “generous” (meaning noble, not just magnanimous) or “wit” (meaning knowledge, not humor) constantly derail comprehension. Lines become confusing, jokes are missed.
After repeated instances, initial fascination wanes, especially for a live, first-time viewing. Reading it beforehand helps, and some argue that pre-reading should be expected. Even for a language nerd like myself, without recent reading, after the first ten minutes of a Shakespearean play, even with British actors and coffee, I often lose track of the language.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: The words simply don’t mean what they once did. I’ve faced criticism for this view, but I maintain that if we watched King Lear without a recent reading, genuine comprehension is unlikely.
We need translations. Conrad Spoke—I want to commend Conrad Spoke and ensure he hears this—has created not slang-heavy “Yo, yo, yo, Mercutio” translations, but rather word-by-word clarifications. When Shakespeare uses “a haggard,” meaning falcon, just translate it as “falcon.”
With such subtle translations, Macbeth becomes as accessible as The Glass Menagerie. You can follow the play, understand the nuances, and genuinely experience it without pre-reading. Translate Shakespeare last week, please.
COWEN: An emotional question: your thoughts on the 1996 German spelling reforms? Does stopp truly require two p’s? Are such formal reforms necessary?
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: No one cares about that. These reforms happened, but they didn’t seem to solve any real problems. Perhaps it was a period of geopolitical calm. Such reforms often reflect the concerns of a small, specific group.
COWEN: In American English, are love letters obsolete?
MCWHORTER: No, no, not at all. Texting demonstrates remarkable articulation. I remember traditional love letters—they were special, but scarce and vulnerable to damage. Texting offers a new, immediate form of intimate communication, equally capable of expressing deep affection. Texting can be highly articulate.
Reading texts from individuals without formal education, one often finds a surprising poetic quality. Love letters aren’t dead, just [in old geezer voice] “kids are doing it differently.” And I’m fine with that.
Remote Interviews, Overrated vs. Underrated, and Musical Tastes
COWEN: Linguistically, how does a job interview via Skype or Zoom differ from a face-to-face interview? How should one adapt? What changes should be expected?
MCWHORTER: You mean if the person is not physically present?
COWEN: Correct, but visible on screen.
MCWHORTER: I think it’s perfectly fine.
COWEN: Just as effective?
MCWHORTER: It helps connect the world. Is physical presence essential—observing leg movements, sensing their “redolence”?
COWEN: These guests all showed up in person, though.
MCWHORTER: Yes. To me, those aspects are distractions. I prefer simply hearing their voice. Frankly, I dislike Skype. Poor video quality, awkward angles, constant dropouts. Yet, “Want to Skype?” is ubiquitous. “It’ll cut out, we’ll look bad,” I think.
I’d rather just hear the person. Perhaps that’s my linguistic bias. I’m not sure what your concern is.
COWEN: You favor radio as an information medium—
MCWHORTER: It was lovely.
COWEN: —primarily auditory. Would you prefer a phone call to a Skype interview for a job candidate?
MCWHORTER: Oh yes, give me the voice. Visuals are unnecessary. Radio was superior media. Radio is simpler than TV—just set up mics. Yes, voice only is preferable for me, but that’s my language-centric quirk. Most people clearly value visual interaction, even with technical glitches.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: I can’t claim superiority, but I’d gladly return to the telephone, frankly.
Overrated vs. Underrated: Andrew Lloyd Webber to New York Subway
COWEN: Now, some questions about race, but first, our tradition: overrated versus underrated. I’ll name something, and you say overrated or underrated. Ready?
MCWHORTER: You want honest answers?
COWEN: Entirely your choice.
MCWHORTER: Okay.
COWEN: Andrew Lloyd Webber?
MCWHORTER: Oh God!
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: Oh, it’s tragic. I know he has fans. Some consider Evita their Porgy and Bess, and I understand that. Jesus Christ Superstar has fervent admirers. I get it.
But, no, he’s—this will be the last time I’m asked about this publicly—a very thin talent who got incredibly lucky. His sense of lyricism is terrible. He’s competent, inoffensive, but lacks genuine genius. Richard Rodgers, perhaps drunk and having just argued with someone in the 50s, could effortlessly compose melodies with more depth than Lloyd Webber has managed maybe seven times in his career.
Even when Lloyd Webber strikes gold with a melody, he often neglects to write a proper bridge. A very thin talent. He’s made a fortune, and continues to, based on limited ability. Some people just get lucky.
COWEN: Tell us what you really think.
[laughter]
COWEN: Harold Arlen.
MCWHORTER: This is the best interview ever. Harold Arlen, composer of “Stormy Weather” and similar songs, never achieved Broadway superstardom. He was a “white black man” in a way. His music was often too sophisticated for its time. A friend, Alex—I know you’ll hear this—frequently shows me Arlen sheet music from the 40s that sounds almost like Ravel. We always remark, “This was too advanced for its time.”
He was brilliant, but a troubled, perhaps sad man, hindering his output. His music is exceptional, and his sheet music is wonderfully pianistic. Harold Arlen songs are a joy to play, reflecting his clear authorial voice.
Harold Arlen—a true artist. Yet he died relatively obscure, a footnote, while Andrew Lloyd Webber is ubiquitous. It’s a tough life, Tyler.
[laughter]
COWEN: New York City subway—overrated or underrated?
MCWHORTER: Oh, goodness gracious, I’m sick of that subway.
COWEN: Relative to its reputation.
MCWHORTER: The New York subway—it’s deteriorating. Worse two years ago, but still the lateness, the pervasive unpleasantness. It’s exhausting. I’m considering moving to a small town or just becoming a recluse.
No, the New York subway is an American tragedy. The romance some find in it… I’m sounding like a curmudgeon because I am.
[laughter]
COWEN: Rodgers and Hart.
MCWHORTER: Yes! Rodgers and Hart created incredible songs, though Hart’s alcoholism occasionally affected lyrical quality—rhymes sometimes faltered. His struggles hindered their artistic trajectory. Hart eventually declined, Rodgers partnering with another lyricist.
Rodgers and Hart’s work is like…finer Jell-O flavors. Cherry Jell-O is unremarkable, institutional.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: But watermelon, peach, grape soda—those are the finer Jell-Os. Like a good chili or jambalaya.
When Rodgers and Hart were at their peak, say, Pal Joey, The Boys from Syracuse, or—for the nerds—Heads Up, their work was exceptional. Good, good stuff. I’ve collected it all.
COWEN: Most underrated biography?
MCWHORTER: The Great One, William Henry III’s biography of Jackie Gleason. A deeply moving portrayal of a monstrous yet sad figure, tracing his Ralph Kramden-esque childhood to fame and his struggles to cope, hurting many. Of biographies I’ve read—and I’m a biography enthusiast—that one resonates most. I’ve reread it.
I won’t say The Power Broker, everyone reads that. But lesser-known biographies… that Gleason one deeply affected me. And last year, a Weegee biography, Bonanos’s biography last year of Weegee. Weegee, the photographer of urban grit—more than just a short man with a camera. A truly excellent book, likely to be overshadowed by flashier biographies.
COWEN: If someone says, “Paul Simon, Bob Dylan—they’re the new American songbook,” or now maybe Taylor Swift, is that crazy? Is there a songbook for every era? Or was the original American songbook unique, unrepeatable?
MCWHORTER: [laughs] No definitive answer. The Great American Songbook is overrated as high art. While I love it, it was partly a marketing concept to boost LP sales in the late 40s.
Melodies are wonderful, harmonies spectacular, lyrics often good, but thematically limited. Moon, June, love—always love. Why always love?
We’re accustomed to it, like cartoon characters being three feet tall and gloved. Is that the only possible cartoon form? Why must these songs always be about unrequited love? Cole Porter could have created more interesting work in a different era.
I say this as a devoted fan. Today, artists like Paul Simon create music that’s different, less structured than Harold Arlen’s. But Simon often explores richer themes. “Stormy Weather” is a good poem, but Paul Simon’s lyrics are often richer. Dylan, more profound than Oscar Hammerstein. But where’s the bounce?
Taylor Swift’s synth-pop has its place—lemon Jell-O exists.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: But compared to Porter’s songbook, while groundbreaking, it’s thematically narrow. Today’s songwriting can explore broader themes, but often prioritizes beat over melody. Where’s the middle ground? Steely Dan? I don’t know.
COWEN: Why did Gershwin “misfire” on race in Porgy and Bess, while Jerome Kern in Showboat arguably didn’t?
MCWHORTER: I disagree that Gershwin “misfired” on race in Porgy and Bess. He immersed himself in Gullah culture, like Daughters of the Dust, connecting with the community. Gershwin was a genius, composing some of the greatest music ever. Guilt might arise because a Black composer didn’t create it.
Gershwin had more formal training than Duke Ellington, enabling him to achieve this. Duke, whom I adore, couldn’t have created Porgy and Bess. Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein’s Showboat is also monumental. People are deeply moved by the 1988 Showboat recording with original orchestrations.
Showboat, however, is less artistically profound than Porgy and Bess. It has wonderful elements, but the original Showboat cast a white woman in blackface as Queenie—a product of its time. I love Showboat, but Kern, like Porter, excelled within a narrower scope, lacking Arlen’s depth. Kern was a seasoned songwriter, but not a groundbreaking artist in the same way.
I prefer Porgy and Bess. Porgy and Bess, to me, embodies humanity. When life is difficult, I listen to the Houston Opera production of Porgy and Bess, lose myself in its creation, wondering at its origin. Showboat doesn’t evoke that same depth for me.
COWEN: Should the Hungarian State Opera’s all-white Porgy and Bess production be considered disturbing? Do you find it disturbing?
MCWHORTER: Personally, no. Many would disagree. A more pertinent question is if an opera company in Utah or Massachusetts did this. Will we reach a point where a white cast for Raisin in the Sun is acceptable?
COWEN: Even for me, Hungarian State Opera feels different, given Hungary’s ethno-nationalist government.
MCWHORTER: Oh, Hungary now?
COWEN: Hungary now.
MCWHORTER: Oh, I thought you meant European opera companies generally.
COWEN: No, Hungarian State Opera specifically, which did mount an all-white Porgy and Bess, causing significant controversy.
MCWHORTER: It’s been done in Germany too. Before widespread criticism, I thought, “Good, they’re experiencing the music. Who else would they cast?” In certain contexts, it should be permissible. I’m unsure of the exact criteria. Hungary today, and what we—
COWEN: This was a few years ago.
MCWHORTER: What do we infer from Hungary’s current political climate? I imagine Hungary has a distinct artistic community separate from any political developments. Disturbing if it were Nazi Germany, but I lack sufficient knowledge of Hungary’s artistic landscape to judge the intent behind this production.
COWEN: What distinguishes our discomfort with an all-white Porgy and Bess cast from our acceptance of Gershwin, a white composer, writing it?
MCWHORTER: Increasingly, I’m unsure. We’re perhaps witnessing the early stages of… and I might be ahead of the curve here. The “browning” of American culture since the mid-90s means many young white people are more attuned to Black culture, speech, music, and movement than previous generations.
Racism persists, undeniably. However, alongside it, a growing affinity for Black culture exists. Perhaps in a couple of generations, the idea of a white Eminem or Adele playing a Black role won’t carry the same historical baggage as Tess Gardella’s blackface Queenie in 1927.
We need to reach that point to truly transcend race. We’re in a peculiar space—great admiration for aspects of Black culture coexisting with persistent prejudice against other aspects.
This might remain static. But human history suggests social dynamics are rarely static. Even regarding race in America, change is possible, and this shift in casting perceptions might be a symptom of it.
Reparations, Black Conservatism, and the Problem of Racism
COWEN: Should there be material reparations for African Americans today?
MCWHORTER: No, I don’t think so, because I believe reparations have already occurred, albeit under different names. Some initiatives succeeded, others didn’t. The 1960s affirmative action programs, the expansion of welfare in the late 60s (especially targeting Black women), and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 were all forms of reparations.
Much has been done. Some worked, some didn’t. It’s already happened, but I understand these past efforts are now often dismissed. You mention societal evolution, and I don’t want to be a curmudgeon. I recently said—
COWEN: Were these efforts excessive? Why is our current state precisely the optimal point? Some initiatives failed, so why not try more? Why stop here?
MCWHORTER: Because what would improve it? Affirmative action persists in many places. Do we need more affirmative action, given its documented downsides? Welfare reform—do we want more welfare, or welfare programs focused on effectively guiding people into employment, which isn’t typically considered reparations?
COWEN: Welfare isn’t symbolic reparations, right? One might argue it’s almost insulting to equate general welfare with reparations specifically for African Americans. Reparations were given to Tuskegee victims, and Chicago in 2015 compensated African Americans tortured by police.
MCWHORTER: Sure.
COWEN: We’ve done targeted reparations. If someone suggests “Let’s do more,” why halt now?
MCWHORTER: My question is, what would it achieve? If reparations meant direct payments to anyone classified as Black—and metrics exist for this, however messy—and people received money in their bank accounts.
Evidence suggests this wouldn’t significantly alter Black American lives. More importantly, in our current ideological climate, these checks would barely be processed before prominent Black writers would decry them as insufficient, dismissive.
T-shirts and memes would proliferate, proclaiming “Reparations are just the beginning, not the end.” It wouldn’t solve fundamental issues. Those currently advocating for reparations would likely remain just as indignant. Not because they’re insincere or careerist, but because this sense of racial grievance is deeply ingrained, not easily altered by tangible changes.
However, if reparations were implemented with a consensus among Black commentators and influencers that it would be significant, a genuine step forward—checks and perhaps other measures, and an acknowledgement of historical injustice—then I’d support it. Life is imperfect, and I’d find a use for the check, perhaps funding my daughters’ college.
But I don’t foresee that consensus. I won’t support further reparations if they’re deemed insignificant, with accusations of naivete for thinking otherwise. That’s my stance on reparations.
COWEN: As you know, there are prominent Black male conservatives like Thomas Sowell. Why are there so few openly conservative Black women?
MCWHORTER: Gosh, I don’t know. I’ve discussed this with my friend Coleman Hughes. It’s often male-dominated. We list names, and it’s almost always men. Some women exist, but for some reason, they rarely endure in that space long-term, failing to become fixtures in that circuit.
I can name a few, like Star Parker, who was prominent a decade or two ago. But the reasons for the lack of sustained, visible non-male figures are unclear to me. It’s a small list overall, but still, the gender disparity is noticeable.
COWEN: An argument: racism is again becoming a larger problem. We live in a NIMBY era with inflated housing costs in desirable areas, algorithms potentially perpetuating bias, and family background increasingly influencing opportunity, making past injustices more persistent.
Even if racial intentions are improving, racism in practical terms is a greater problem now than, say, in the 1990s. True or false?
MCWHORTER: False.
COWEN: Why?
MCWHORTER: First, we must define “racism.” It’s been broadened from personal bias to societal discrepancies attributed to racism. But equating discrepancies with inherent racism without demonstrating direct bias is problematic. I fear this latter, broader definition is often implied.
Even if your points were valid—and I’m not conceding they are—the decisiveness of racism’s impact is debatable. We tend to assume uniquely dire conditions in post-industrial, late 20th/early 21st-century societies, supposedly creating insurmountable obstacles for descendants of African slaves.
Their challenges are then attributed solely to “racism,” implying ongoing discrimination. Discrepancies become proof of racism, a view sometimes lauded with awards.
I question the justification for this singular focus. Black America’s problems are not self-inflicted, and I’ve written about this. It’s not laziness or “poverty pimping.” It’s a complex interplay of socio-historical factors. But to claim racism as the primary problem—
COWEN: Not primary, but—
MCWHORTER: The decisive problem?
COWEN: That it’s worsening due to objective conditions, even with potentially improved intentions.
MCWHORTER: Even if so? I believe Black people are underestimated. Not to imply this is your argument, but the notion that those actuarial factors are solely responsible for violence among young Black men in Chicago, or the disproportionate number of stabbings in certain New York neighborhoods, is overly simplistic.
It’s more complex. Yes, I accept your premise, but it shouldn’t dominate our approach to solutions. Focusing solely on eliminating “racism” is vague and seemingly intractable. That path leads to inaction.
COWEN: Race aside, in which year were economic opportunities for lower-income Americans best: 2020, or another year?
MCWHORTER: Opportunity is certainly diminished now. But how do other groups navigate this? Is the current limited opportunity uniquely devastating? Other groups are adapting—not thriving, but coping—with these challenges. Am I misunderstanding your point?
COWEN: No, you understand. But relative mobility for lower-income individuals of all races has declined. Reduced opportunity disproportionately affects some racial groups.
MCWHORTER: It would have to disproportionately affect some group, and descendants of African slaves are a likely candidate. But was the trajectory starting in the late 60s inevitable?
When social scientists predicted this trajectory, citing automation, etc., in the late 60s, just as deindustrialization became accepted wisdom, a massive influx of immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa arrived, not living lavishly, but demonstrating viable paths to economic participation.
This doesn’t suggest Black Americans are inherently deficient. It’s again a complex mix of factors. Here in Washington, DC, my driver was Ethiopian. Cabs in DC are often driven by Black individuals, often Black Americans.
Taxi driving isn’t ideal, not like a factory job 50 years ago, but it’s work. The question is why so many were left behind then. I acknowledge your point, but the outcome from the early 80s onward wasn’t predetermined.
The John McWhorter Production Function: Influences and Insights
COWEN: For our final segment, questions about the “John McWhorter production function.”
MCWHORTER: What’s that?
COWEN: You’ll see. Did Quaker high school influence you? If so, how?
MCWHORTER: It was demanding. Homework was rigorous. Private school, high academic standards. It made me Jewish because most students were Jewish.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: That was the main impact. Hard work, Jewish cultural immersion, homework intensity. Is something stuck in my throat? I’m not really addressing Quakerism itself.
Friends Select School was wonderful. People from there might hear this. Friends Select (1977-1981)—I learned about nuclear disarmament, peacefulness. But I was a hormonal teen. Geometry was hard, and I learned about Rosh Hashanah and Seder. Yes, I became culturally Jewish, learned to study hard, and played cello.
COWEN: What did you learn from your social worker mother?
MCWHORTER: Ohhh, now that’s insightful. Not the obvious. My mother was—though she wouldn’t phrase it this way—a leftist. A social work professor, she taught a course, I believe, called Racism 101, starting in the early 70s. I learned the deindustrialization hypothesis from her, covert racism, and how to detect it even among my Jewish classmates.
The whole package—I learned it all from her. It’s why I try to understand contemporary left-leaning perspectives, asking “How would Mom frame this?” when Black people disagree with me.
I should stop saying this, but perhaps it’s now understood. Ten years ago, saying “I’m a liberal” would elicit outrage. Now, maybe just mild disagreement, because I’m a cranky liberal. Not a Republican, never conservative.
Mom taught me “the right way to think,” the leftist worldview. I think she was overly pessimistic, but she grew up in the Deep South in the 40s and 50s. That would breed pessimism.
I learned the left’s catechism from her. I still hear it in my head. Most of it was valid. But I now consider: where do we go from there? Easier for me, having been a 70s Jewish kid, than someone involved in 50s/60s sit-ins.
COWEN: What did you learn from your university administrator father?
MCWHORTER: Dad was complex. Not much directly about university administration, except he knew a guy, Todd—probably 30—who programmed Looney Tunes unavailable on TV. That was my only access to uncensored, black-and-white Looney Tunes with minstrel caricatures.
That stuck with me. I’ve now seen almost every Looney Tune—a ridiculous collection, like Jell-O. A life joy. My daughters now watch them, learning titles—that’s part of my identity.
Otherwise, Dad taught me music. Imagine Bill Cosby, pre-scandal—that demeanor, age, sweaters. He played every instrument and taught me.
I teach music history at Columbia to avoid boredom, and frequently realize, “Dad taught me that.” Bourbon in hand, “That’s a pedal point, Picardy third. Boogie-woogie bass—play it! Can’t you play it?” That sort of thing. Music from him, not university administration.
COWEN: How does living in Jackson Heights, Queens, shape your worldview?
MCWHORTER: Jackson Heights is a wonderful, quiet secret. One of Earth’s most diverse places. Hundreds of languages. Every cuisine imaginable except good Korean fried chicken—though that’s likely coming soon.
Equally divided between global immigrants and NPR-listening, over-educated types like me. Truly diverse—a KFC and a Denny’s, not just Tibetan food.
[laughter]
Wonderful neighborhood. Parking is scarce, but nothing’s perfect. I can walk to LaGuardia on a clear day. A pleasure.
COWEN: What characteristics do your best linguistics students share? How do you spot linguistic talent?
MCWHORTER: Linguists might find this simplistic, but it’s students who enjoy both Russian and Chinese. Two language types: English (in-between), conjugating languages (stroke-inducing Russian), and tonal languages (stroke-inducing for different reasons). Those who embrace both…
Also, those who grasp the phoneme/allophone distinction. “Bottle” vs. “botel”—”uh” in “botel” is an allophone of “t.” “Bottle” and “bobble” differ—”bu” and “tu” are phonemes. “Tu” and “uh” are allophones.
This distinction takes weeks to teach, some never grasp it. Seeing a student “get” phonemes—the lightbulb moment—that’s talent. Phonemes, Russian, and Chinese.
COWEN: How was your linguistic talent first recognized?
MCWHORTER: A British Latin teacher in college. Uncommon in my life then. I took Latin because friends did, not knowing I was good at it. She said, [British accent] “John, it’s your calling. Your calling. You must do it.”
[laughter]
I didn’t know what “it” was, but “British lady says so, must be my calling.” So I pursued it.
Though later, a college linguist, Tom—handlebar mustache—told me, “Linguistics is done. All figured out.” Derailed me for three years. Goddamn you, Tom. It was that British lady.
[laughter]
COWEN: Finally, your acclaimed podcast, Lexicon Valley, which I highly recommend.
MCWHORTER: I do too.
COWEN: What do you learn from podcasting? How does it enhance your understanding?
MCWHORTER: Truthfully, given the speed of episode production, I don’t learn from it. It’s about sharing my linguistic passions. Linguistics are “toys” to me. “What’s fun this week? Let’s explore it.”
The latest episode explores genes and language, their interconnections. Just a thought: “Let’s make a show about that.” Releasing the day after this taping.
It’s sharing my “toy box.” How to explain complex topics accessibly? Teaching helps. But it’s primarily, “Here’s my toy box, let’s dive in.”
COWEN: John McWhorter, thank you very much.
MCWHORTER: Thank you.
Q&A: Culture Wars, Accents, Esperanto, and More
COWEN: Questions? Mics on both sides. Questions for John only, not statements. Speeches will be cut short. First question.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Your 90s experience and culture wars, parallels to today?
MCWHORTER: Interesting question, beyond typical linguistic scope, more philosophy of language. Never a focus in my departments.
Ebonics controversy less about authorship, more about oppressed group claims on education and political allegiances.
My media debut, probably because I was “wrong” in the Ebonics debate, arguing home life and neighborhood issues, not dialect differences, hindered Black students, “isn’t” vs. “ain’t.” Unexpectedly deemed disloyal, generating brief attention.
Gradual return to aesthetic appreciation of literature in English departments, a positive sign, though slight.
Never asked to weigh in on that. Linguists study grammar, not literacy codes. Does that address your question?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Partly. Culture wars writ large? Deeper cultural conflicts beyond politics, like the 90s culture wars, including Ebonics.
MCWHORTER: Left won that war. Current generation immersed in assumptions, challenging orthodoxy more than 35 years ago.
While diverse opinions exist, the “culture wars” of the past are now a leftist orthodoxy, especially in universities and college towns.
Pushback exists elsewhere, particularly in the last decade. But in your academic world and mine, it’s not even a war anymore.
COWEN: Next question.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Rural accents? Archaic accent, considered “dead.” Should they smooth accents? Career aspirations in big cities?
MCWHORTER: Your accent isn’t ancient, just different. Language branches and evolves. Your accent is simply a different branch. Nothing archaic.
Frankly—don’t misunderstand—asking this question feels like 50 years ago, elocution lessons era. In today’s culture wars context, your accent is an asset. Distinctive. “Cult of authenticity,” for better or worse.
People will listen more. Sympathy elicited by your accent. Your surprise suggests you didn’t expect this. No, I’d love your accent, gives you a unique “calling card.”
COWEN: iPad question: Simple, universal language? Why not Esperanto?
MCWHORTER: Walks away.
COWEN: Anything else?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Briefly, jarring to some. Assumptions made. Derails conversation. Overly distinctive, trivializing.
MCWHORTER: I understand, especially given parallels in my life. Tiring when your speech deviates from expectations. Definitely true.
COWEN: My impression, you’re from the Netherlands.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Rural Virginia. Professor once guessed Dutch, panicked, fled.
[laughter]
COWEN: Esperanto.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: Archaic. Esperanto is “Italian dumbed down.” Mi parolas Esperanto in lingvon. Language nerds embraced it before dating. Not easy for Chinese speakers. Zamenhof’s limited worldview, typical for his time.
Esperanto is simplified Italian with additions. Esperanto verbs, for non-European speakers, are nightmarish. Zamenhof assumed languages must have complex tense structures. Many languages rely on context.
Fun toy, handiest artificial language. Volapük, another popular artificial language—someone created a hard artificial language, pointless.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: Esperanto is great, but English is the de facto international language, likely here to stay.
COWEN: Next question.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Language controls thought theory? 1984. You say not really, marginal effects. Where’s the margin? Trivial things? Political branding? “Pro-life” vs. “anti-abortion”—influence reasoning, opinions, outcomes?
MCWHORTER: Terminology can influence, but negative associations cling to concepts, regardless of terminology shifts.
“Pro-life,” “pro-choice”—clever terms, we understand them. That’s inevitable. Language subtly affects thought, measurable with brain scans, revealing minute distinctions.
Russian has two “blue” words—light and dark blue. Russians slightly more sensitive to blue shade variations. A worldview? Hopefully not.
[laughter]
Terminology can shift debates, but terms require constant renewal. Change thought, not just language.
COWEN: Next question.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Advice for young African Americans? Culture wars veteran. Downward pressure, “baton” of history, fear of slowing progress. Rosa Parks seems ancient.
MCWHORTER: My daughter, age eight, recently said, innocently, “Tired of Martin Luther King” due to school.
[laughter]
MCWHORTER: Seemed like ancient history to her. I explained his significance, but it felt like the French and Indian War to her.
My real answer: singing high notes. Effortful reaching up—difficult. Good singers imagine looking down at the note—effortless.
Blackness as burden? Microaggressions, etc. Yes, they exist. But from my perspective—and pre-60s perspective—if someone hurls a microaggression, look down on it. Snobbish? Perhaps.
If someone calls me “nigger,” supposed to cry, run to diversity coordinator? Never resonated. I’m better than that person. Always felt that way. Past 30, realized, “Oh, supposed to be hurt.”
Instill this in others. My daughters seem innately inclined this way. If someone insults you, they’re wrong. You have much to live for. Life isn’t perfect, think of tonight’s good dinner.
Not a bromide. Be a little snobbish. Don’t let insults, subtle or overt, diminish you. You’re better. Perhaps not “responsible” advice for a 54-year-old, but I believe it’s right. Like 1950s Black Americans—be arrogant like old people.
[laughter]
COWEN: Next question.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Top-down language control? French Academy, Korean script—Chinese characters to limit literacy, power consolidation. Effects on language, creativity, culture?
MCWHORTER: Top-down language control is difficult, rarely works, except…
Blackboard grammar rules—”Billy and I,” not “Billy and me”—partially successful due to social shame. Otherwise, rules are broken, language evolves regardless.
Korea interesting. Opaque writing system—Chinese characters—limits mass written expression, creativity.
But even then, surprising adaptability. Chinese writing—Korean King Sejong created Hangul, perfect system—Chinese writing is a “hair-raising, ridiculous, indefensible nightmare.” Scribes-only system, a running joke. Yet ordinary people use it. Toddlers absorb it. Waiters in Chinese restaurants know thousands of characters. Amazing human capacity, but you don’t want Korean written in Chinese. “Barbaric,” insulting to your country—but 600 years ago. Amazing human adaptability.
COWEN: iPad question: Miles Davis’s Porgy and Bess?
MCWHORTER: [laughs] Miles Davis—distilling complexity into single statements. Love his Porgy and Bess, but prefer the original, a “god.” Still, wonderful, part of life, dinner music, “making a lot of things” music.
[laughter]
Nice, but I always return to the full Porgy and Bess. Miles Davis—represented about seven times in my life.
COWEN: Houston Opera version preferred, not Simon Rattle?
MCWHORTER: Yes, fuddy-duddy. Some prefer Glen Burn. But Houston Opera… I was ten. Unsentimental now, but saw that production then. Mom dragged me, I sobbed at the end, unusual for me, so touched. Sentimental attachment to that recording.
COWEN: Last two questions. One each side.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mandarin/pidgin simplified international languages. Sign languages similar? American Indian trade languages? Linguists study sign? Phonemes, allophones, allotones?
MCWHORTER: Allophones.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Allophones.
MCWHORTER: Allotones—like a doo-wop group. Sign languages studied. Just in Israel, working with a group on that. New languages, like pidgins/Creoles. Pidgin sign languages evolve into Creole sign languages, complex languages.
They have phonemes, allotones, [laughs] interesting analysis. Hands used, seemingly no sound, but equivalent. Complex, all features of spoken languages.
Tyler, you asked about new Creoles. Sign languages are new languages being born, especially in Asia. Interesting new language genesis story.
COWEN: Last question.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Altaic language family, Mongolian? Structure different from Latin, Greek, East Asian. Research, findings? Influence on Chinese?
MCWHORTER: Amazing question, great closer. Mongolian languages—cool, meanings kept separate, suffixes for specific functions, elegant. Mongolian hybrid languages, like in Tibet—Mandarin, Tibetan dialects, Mongolian—linguistic “train wreck,” unique village mixtures. Common occurrence.
If Mongolian, Baarin variety example. Mongolian speakers running China, limited linguistic impact as they didn’t interact much with population.
But Chinese and Mongolian speakers historically intertwined in the north. Some Chinese complexities from Mongolian influence, hybrid system. Mongolian language story.
COWEN: John has 20+ books on Amazon. Podcast: Lexicon Valley, Google “John McWhorter podcast.”
MCWHORTER: Lexicon Valley.
COWEN: Big hand for John. Thank you.
